Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdragon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdragon!rggoebel
From: rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG)
Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Standard behavior?
Message-ID: <1021@watdragon.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-May-86 23:21:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdrago.1021
Posted: Sun May 25 23:21:44 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 26-May-86 06:33:42 EDT
References: <980@watdragon.UUCP> <253@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17

> Now, a general philosophical point.  Prolog is certainly _not_ logic 
> programming, although it is a large step in that direction.  A true 
> logic programming language would not have nor need "cut" ("!"), 
> "var", "nonvar", etc.  ("=..", "name", "is" and even "call" are 
> legitimate because they can be considered as an infinite number of 
> rules.  "var" and "nonvar" can't be described that way).  One of the 
> advantages of logic programming is that it allows us to consider 
> computations without knowing (precisely) the underlying execution 
> strategy.  Indeed, for "pure" programs, the execution strategy could 
> change, yet the programs would still execute correctly.  Let us 
> strive to produce true logic programming languages which get over the 
> minor failings of Prolog.  

Many claim that "logic programming" is an oxymoron. The logic of pure Prolog
is well defined...that's all I said.  I don't believe that cut, var, and
nonvar cannot be described logically, just because they aren't in Prolog
implementations.